What does talk of meaning mean? All thinking consists in natural happenings in the brain. Talk of meaning though, has resisted interpretation in terms of. Meaning and Normativity. Allan Gibbard*. In the past dozen years, phrases like ” the normativity of meanin have swept into the philosophy of language. Meaning and Normativity, by AllanGibbard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, , xiv + pp. ISBN ‐0‐19‐‐4 hb £
|Published (Last):||6 January 2004|
|PDF File Size:||17.98 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.84 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The resulting theory should be of considerable interest to philosophers of a variety of stripes, including those who think of the concept of meaning as principally empirical and descriptive in character, for it has a structure that is easily transposed to a variety of conceptual frameworks.
Plans Apart from giving a preliminary characterization of ought-judgments as all-things-considered and irreducible to hypothetical imperatives, Gibbard treats such judgments as primitives in the first seven chapters. Review Allan Gibbard – Meaning and Normativity.
Suppose that an evil demon would change his mind about wiping out the human race if I would just embrace a contradiction. Request removal from index. Paul Boghossian has put forward a closely related objection.
Being Realistic about Reasons T. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO hormativity personal use for details see www.
Bibliographic Information Print publication date: Another departure from the commonsense conception is motivated by the fact that we make ought-judgments of various kinds about agents other than normativiity. Hence, in the cases in question, at least, ascriptions of meaning will receive their warrant from normative judgments, not from sets of facts.
Allan Gibbard – – Philosophical Issues 5: Claudine Verheggen – – Logique Et Analyse 54 Gibbard rejects this approach because he doubts that it can account for the fact that the entailments hold invariably and automatically — that is, irrespective of agents’ plans, interests, and background beliefs.
Language and Logics Howard Gregory. It is controversial whether prototypes and collections of exemplars are constitutively related to meanings, but they seem to have as good a claim to semantic relevance as many theories.
He thinks that meanings of terms in our perceptual vocabulary are determined outright by conditions linking them to sense experience, and that the meanings of non-perceptual terms are determined recursively by a hierarchy of definitions, where each definition takes the form of a Carnap pair. No keywords neaning fix it.
Gibbard’s position is clearly the more complicated of the two, and it therefore carries a larger burden of proof. But I have some inclination to suppose that it actually abbreviates the following more complicated argument:. Tests for this metatheory are then devised in terms of the metatheory itself.
Oxford Scholarship Online This book is available as part of Oxford Scholarship Online – view abstracts and keywords at book and chapter level. Gibbard faces these questions squarely and offers attractive meaninng.
As Gibbard sees it, this pattern is repeated elsewhere. According to this combined theory, to judge that a sentence in my idiolect means that p is to form a plan to use the sentence in a certain way. Of course, it would be possible for him to scale his theory back to the claim that meanings are fixed by obligations to accept Carnap pairs in some but not all epistemic situations, and for some but not all suppositions; but then he would face the problem of distinguishing in a principled way between the situations and suppositions that are relevant to meaning and those that are not.
According to one traditional view, a sentence counts as analytic if it is acceptable solely on the basis of its meaning. This, Kripke’s Wittgenstein suggests, is because the concept of meaning is normative, on the ‘ought’ side of Hume’s divide between is and ought. This leaves the question of whether the relevant ought statements are subjective or objective in character. That is, in order to find a referent, one must form an idealized picture of the role of T in the theory.
Allan Gibbard, Meaning and Normativity – PhilPapers
Thus, Newtonian physics asserts that there is a single quantity, Newtonian mass, that fulfills both the principle that momentum equals mass times velocity and the principle that the mass of an entity is constant across frames of reference. It derives exclusively from the alan and third premises, which are both explicitly normative. Rather, there are two physical quantities such that each one fulfills some of the things that Newton said about mass while failing to conform to others.
Gibbard gives two main reasons for embracing his views about meaning. Of course, this by no means shows that Gibbard is wrong, but noramtivity does indicate that he has more work to do. Gibbard’s next step is to say, in effect, that almost all words are theoretical terms, and therefore have meanings that can be captured by Carnap pairs. Generally speaking, their contents are not articulable, in the sense that their users would not be capable of translating them into explicit beliefs or sentences.
Talk of analyticity is initially provisional, with a normatkvity developed in terms of the ensuing metatheory of meaning. Judgments of synonymy are explained as follows:.